Uploading a GST show-cause notice only under “Additional Notice and Orders” violates natural justice.

The petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 06.04.2024 passed by Respondent No. 3 and the appellate order dated 03.12.2025 passed under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The proceedings originated from a show-cause notice in Form DRC-01 dated 09.12.2023 demanding tax, interest and penalty.

Although the notice was uploaded on the GST portal, it was placed only under the tab “Additional Notice and Orders,” and the petitioner claimed that he consequently received no effective or actual intimation and could not submit a reply.

The petitioner’s statutory appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation without examination on merits.

The State contended that adequate opportunities had been given through DRC-01A dated 20.11.2023, DRC-01 dated 09.12.2023 and a reminder dated 26.02.2024.

Whether uploading the show-cause notice only under the GST portal tab “Additional Notice and Orders,” without separate effective intimation, violated the petitioner’s right to natural justice.

Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal solely on limitation, without adjudicating the matter on merits, in the circumstances of the case.

Whether the adjudication and appellate orders ought to be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after permitting the petitioner to submit a reply and receive a hearing.

The Court applied Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, governing appeals against adjudication orders.

It also applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond before an adverse adjudicatory order is passed.

The Court held that where a show-cause notice is not effectively brought to the taxpayer’s knowledge and the appeal is dismissed only on limitation without consideration of merits, judicial interference may be warranted to secure a fair hearing.

The Court found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case because the show-cause notice had been uploaded only under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab and no separate intimation had been given.

On that factual basis, the petitioner was considered unable to respond to the notice, amounting to a violation of natural justice.

Although the State relied on the earlier DRC-01A, the DRC-01 and the reminder to establish that sufficient opportunities had been provided, the Court considered the petitioner’s explanation regarding the ineffective placement of the notice and the absence of a merits determination in the appeal.

Since the appeal had been rejected solely on limitation, the Court held that interference was warranted in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show-cause notice dated 09.12.2023 before the concerned authority within two weeks.

The authority was directed to consider the reply, provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receiving the reply; the decision was to be communicated within one week thereafter.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order calling for an affidavit in opposition.